Mr. Gull:
G:My questioning why the sudden civility extended to me was only in reaction to all the speculation that I was a female lawyer,an analyst,a liar etc... So I question the sudden civility extended to me and still do.
C: Civility from me has nothing to do with who you are. It speaks about who I am (as my grandmother tells me)
G:Your second answer that it takes two to tango begs the question. The simple answer to that simple question is that I was the subject of attack as I had presented a different viewpoint which is what this thread should be about.
C: Very reasonable.
G:Why should my motivations cloud the issue? Surely facts speak for themselves and motivation should not be a mitigating factor in establishing the truth?
C:A wise old man once told me that every story has three sides, meaning that motivation can alter one's sense of facts. This should not be surprising in a country like RSA, where much change has occurred and is ongoing.
G:I think that your understanding of what transpired during the negotiations with the heirs is exactly that i.e. your understanding and not based on factual evidence.
C:It is based on what I believe are facts. History will tell us us who's facts were right.
G:INFOMAN provided both dates,times as well as people who attended these negotiations. To date they have not been rebutted.
C:Meetings, negotiations only occur when vested interests have the ability to make decisions and resolve issues. Meetings happened months and weeks ago. Negotiations are happening now. Rebuttal is selective (see my last response to you );)
(I've never done one of those winky things before!)
G:Who are "Nicky's people" and "Nicky"?
C:I'm sorry. Apparently diamond people and many South Africans refer to Mr. Nicholas Oppenheimer, CEO of De Beers as Nicky. I thought we'd all know who was in our little group.
G:Are they theme park characters like Nicky Nouse? I think that you will find them in theme parks such as Disneyland and so obviously "Nicky himself is not in RSA". I did not realise that you were on first name terms with people of such stature.
C: Huh?
G:If INFOMAN's detailed response is not attributable when he gives detailed dates,Departments,Sections,Acts,Offices,etc..then what is?
C:Read carefully, it sounds official, but if his words were 100% true he would have named himself and been ready to answer any and all questions (not that he is obliged to -- his existence on this thread has allegedy been to promote truth/facts, so I'm assuming that he'd relish a chance to answer queries as opposed to writing a long list of stuff)
G:If this doesn't answer your questions then I suggest that you read it again thoroughly.
C: I have. Several times. And others thoughts. And talked with many people in different parts of the world. And now I feel the need to respond to you early risers in what I hope continues to be a non-confrontational manner. (Geez, its only money!)
G:Do you think that in such a relatively small community and with all the press coverage that if there were other claimants that they wouldn't have come forward by now?
C: De Beers says that they found M1 over a decade ago. Did they contact "heirs"? Did "heirs" contact them?
G:Do you intend the word obfuscate to mean to make obscure or to bewilder?
C: Yes
G:I don't see how it applies in the first instance.
C:This is the reason that contributors are hostile towards you
G:The records of that time period are accurate.
C:Then why weren't the mineral rights named in four separate person's estates (as other mineral rights were)? It doesn't hold that records are accurate and the mineral rights were owned by the 1920's owners. And I'm sure you don't mean to speak for the RSA, and their records, systems, laws, commerce, etc. from 1920s through the present.
G:The explanation as to how the R2800 was reached is self explanatory as it was the figure determined as the value of the rights 30 years ago.
C:Same as the DME determined the a priori mineral rights were worth 980,000 Rand (top end, by the way)
G:I do not see why the agreement with DeBeers is regarded as stealth,I am sure that SUF also have confidential agreements.
C: Of course. But when a public company makes a material agreement, they are obliged to disclose its contents. But De Beers has a long history of doing things their way -- and that is why diamonds are so valuable! Don't mistake me: De Beers is wonderful, except when there actions hurt my interests. But I think they'll all play nice soon.
G:Why not ask SUF wether or not the meeting took place on 8th Jan?
C:Apparently meetings did happen. But several paragraphs ago you refered to them as negotiations. I think your present terms are more reasonable. (See how "facts" can change quickly?)
G:I have mentioned many times that like all of us I am motivated by money.
C: If you (and your contrarian contributors) weren't you'd be insane to spend the time vigorously upholding your beliefs.
G:Even if the Section 24 is used to appropriate,the market value will have to be paid and I think that it has been established.
C: Market value of mineral rights through an arbitration process is likley to focus on precedent, surrounding agreements, etc. The DME has already done this. 980,000 Rand. After a find, numbers obviously change. That is why most land/rights holders insist on some type of equity position.
Enjoy the weekend!
Confluence
PS In Canada we're enjoying a 3 day weekend in celebration of Queen Victoria. (Well, she's not our queen, but the Brits kind of ruled things for a while, and well, most Canadians won't agrue about a long weekend, so tradition continues -- enough! I'm going back to the lake!) |
